Insecticide Resistance Management of Leafrollers (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in New Zealand
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Horticultural Insects 163 INSECTICIDE RESISTANCE MANAGEMENT OF LEAFROLLERS (LEPIDOPTERA: TORTRICIDAE) IN NEW ZEALAND P.L. LO1, J.T.S. WALKER1 and D.M. SUCKLING2 1HortResearch, Hawke’s Bay Research Centre, Private Bag 1401, Havelock North, New Zealand 2HortResearch, Canterbury Research Centre, P.O. Box 51, Lincoln, Canterbury, New Zealand ABSTRACT Resistance to the organophosphate insecticide azinphos-methyl has been previously identified in two species of leafroller (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in New Zealand. This study confirmed resistance in a third species,Ctenopseustis obliquana. Populations of Epiphyas postvittana, Planotortrix. octo and C. obliquana resistant to azinphos-methyl were not cross-resistant to lufenuron. A separate population of C. obliquana was resistant to taufluvalinate. Cross-resistance between azinphos- methyl and tebufenozide occurred in P octo and C. obliquana, but not in E. postvittana. This difference in cross-resistance between the three species suggests that at least two different detoxification mechanisms may be operating. Therefore we cannot generalise about whether resistant populations of each species will be fully susceptible to new insecticides. Lufenuron is recommended as a key insecticide within a resistance management programme for leafrollers, while tebufenozide should be used with caution. Keywords: leafroller, Tortricidae, insecticide resistance, organophosphate, insect growth regulator. INTRODUCTION Resistance to pesticides is an increasing problem in New Zealand and around the world, as more pests become resistant to more products. Examples of pests in New Zealand that are resistant to herbicides, fungicides, miticides and insecticides are given by Bourdôt and Suckling (1996). Resistance can develop to virtually any crop protection product that is designed to kill pests. The likelihood of resistance occurring and the speed with which it develops depends on a combination of factors that make up the “selection pressure” (Georghiou and Taylor 1977a, b). These factors include (a) the biology and ecology of the pest, (b) how toxic and persistent a pesticide is and (c) the frequency of product use. Once a pest has developed resistance to one pesticide, it may also be “cross-resistant” to other pesticides that have the same mode of action. In rare cases, a pest can develop “multiple resistance” to more than one class of pesticide with different modes of action. Leafrollers (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) are key pests of fruit tree and vine crops in New Zealand. There are six common pest species (Wearing et al. 1991) but only Epiphyas postvittana (lightbrown apple moth) occurs throughout the country. Two species in three regions have developed resistance to the organophosphate insecticide azinphos-methyl (Gusathion). They are E. postvittana in Nelson (Suckling et al. 1984), and Planotortrix octo (greenheaded leafroller) in Central Otago (Wearing 1995a) and Hawke’s Bay (Lo et al. 1997). Azinphos-methyl resistant E. postvittana were cross-resistant to phosmet, chlorpyrifos and carbaryl (Suckling and Khoo 1990). Azinphos-methyl resistant P. octo from Central Otago have cross-resistance to chlorpyrifos, carbaryl (Wearing 1995a) and to the insect growth regulator tebufenozide (Wearing 1998). In laboratory studies, Wearing (1998) showed that selection of New Zealand Plant Protection 53:163-167 (2000) © 2000 New Zealand Plant Protection Society (Inc.) www.nzpps.org Refer to http://www.nzpps.org/terms_of_use.html Horticultural Insects 164 resistantP. octo with tebufenozide or azinphos-methyl increased the level of resistance to both insecticides. In 1996 the New Zealand pipfruit industry began implementing an integrated fruit production (IFP) programme (Walker et al. 1997), which has now been adopted by over 85% of growers. Pest management under the former “conventional” programmes was based on two-weekly sprays of organophosphate insecticides during the growing season. After several decades of such use on many orchards, it was not surprising that resistance should develop to azinphos-methyl, the main insecticide used. Since the introduction of IFP, pesticide use overall has declined dramatically, particularly organophosphates, which have been replaced by insect growth regulators. It is vital that these new insecticides are used within resistance management programmes if reliable and sustainable pest management is to be achieved. In this paper we give an overview of the current situation with regard to management of organophosphate-resistant populations of leafrollers and update the information on resistance to two insect growth regulators (a benzoylhydrazine and a benzoylurea) and a pyrethroid insecticide. METHODS Areas where leafrollers were suspected of having developed resistance to insecticides were initially identified from reports that growers were having difficulty achieving adequate control of these pests. Larvae were collected from pip and berryfruit orchards (Hawke’s Bay), shelter or scrub adjacent to orchards (Nelson) and an avocado orchard (Bay of Plenty). The larvae were reared on artificial diet in the laboratory to determine their species, and adults from suspected resistant species were mated to produce neonate larvae for testing with insecticides. The larvae tested were the F1 offspring of field-collected wild-wild crosses, except for the Ctenopseustis obliquana (brownheaded leafroller) from Hawke’s Bay tested with azinphos-methyl. The latter were the offspring of wild moths crossed with susceptible laboratory moths. The insecticides that each species of leafroller was tested against are given in Table 1. Full details of the procedures used are given in Wearing (1995a, 1998) and Lo et al. (1997). In each case the data from field populations were compared against fully susceptible larvae from laboratory colonies maintained by HortResearch at the Mount Albert Research Centre in Auckland. These colonies were established from susceptible leafrollers and have not been exposed to insecticides for many generations. Different bioassays were used to test different classes of insecticides. Organophosphates and the pyrethroid were tested using a Potter tower where larvae were sprayed with the insecticide before being transferred onto artificial diet (direct spray bioassay). Insect growth regulators were tested either by mixing the insecticide into artificial diet (diet incorporation) or by spraying it onto artificial diet (sprayed diet) and then introducing leafroller larvae. There were 4-6 replicates. Each population was tested with a range of insecticide concentrations and the resulting mortalities were analysed by standard probit analysis (LeOra software 1987) to produce dose-mortality response curves and LC50 values (the concentration estimated to kill 50% of the population). By convention, resistance was defined as a five-fold or greater difference between the LC50 value of the test population and a reference susceptible strain (Suckling and Khoo 1990). RESULTS The results of testing three species of leafroller for insecticide resistance are summarised in Table 1. Azinphos-methyl resistant populations of P. octo in Hawke’s Bay were cross-resistant to tebufenozide (Mimic), but not to chlorpyrifos (Lorsban) or lufenuron (Match). The wild-susceptible crosses of C. obliquana from the Longlands area, Hawke’s Bay had a 2-6-fold resistance factor to azinphos-methyl. The resistance factor for wild-wild resistant moths would be expected to be approximately double that recorded (i.e. 4-12-fold), or higher in the case of homozygous resistance. These resistant C. obliquana were cross-resistant to tebufenozide, but not to lufenuron. A range of levels of resistance to the pyrethroid taufluvalinate (Mavrik) was recorded in © 2000 New Zealand Plant Protection Society (Inc.) www.nzpps.org Refer to http://www.nzpps.org/terms_of_use.html Horticultural Insects 165 C. obliquana from the Bay of Plenty. Unlike the previous two species, azinphos- methyl resistant E. postvittana from Nelson were not resistant to either tebufenozide or lufenuron. TABLE 1: Susceptibility of field-collected leafrollers compared with fully susceptible laboratory strains to five insecticides tested between 1994 and 1999. _________________________________________________________________ 3 Species (Region) LC50 (ppm) Resistance Bioassay Site Susceptibility Insecticide (Class1) factor2 to azinphos Orchard Laboratory -methyl _________________________________________________________________ P. octo (Hawke’s Bay) azinphos-methyl (OP) 41.9 6.1 7 4 DS A Resistant 66.5 11 4 B Resistant 194.5 32 4 C Resistant chlorpyrifos (OP) 50.0 22.6 2 DS D Resistant 70.4 3 A tebufenozide (BH) 2.1 0.3 6 DI A lufenuron (BU) 2.8 1.5 2 DI A C. obliquana (Hawke’s Bay) azinphos-methyl 8.2-23.6 4.0 2-6 5 DS E Resistant 7.3-24.7 4.0 2-6 5 DS F Resistant tebufenozide 77.5 5.6 14 SD G Resistant lufenuron 5.1 2.7 2 DI H Resistant C. obliquana (Bay of Plenty) taufluvalinate (SP) 8.4-47.2 2.8 3-17 DS I Unknown E. postvittana (Nelson) tebufenozide 5.6 2.9 2 DI J Susceptible 9.4 2.9 3 DI K Resistant lufenuron 3.1 1.8 2 DI K _________________________________________________________________ 1OP organophosphate, BH benzoylhydrazine, BU benzoylurea, SP synthetic pyrethroid. 2 Orchard LC50/Laboratory LC50; resistance defined as a 5 fold difference between field and susceptible populations. 3DS direct spray, DI diet incorporation, SD sprayed diet. 4Data from Lo et al. 1997. 5Larvae tested were the offspring of wild moths crossed with susceptible laboratory moths, therefore